[kenberg]

I also like Fred's comments a lot. However, with reference to the double of 3C in an online tourney (at least in most I have played in and I have played in the Tango), I think common sense leads us to "undiscussed" as a completely reasonable answer, especially if you add that it is a pick-up partnership. The opponents should have little trouble believing you that it is undiscussed, so everyone is doing their best in an undiscussed auction, and there is no reason I can see that you need explain to your opponents what you hold.

I believe I set a reasonable standard for myself about disclosure. Playing with a pick-up who opens a weak 2D, if I bid 2S I tell the opponents whether I intend it as forcing. I am assuming, or at least hoping, I have enough of a feeling for partner's views to bid know which meaning partner will assume , although I could be wrong. There is usually some sort of implied understanding and I share it with opponents with the "intended" proviso. But in the case at hand everyone is doing a bit of guessing (although I can't see the "guess" as exactly a tough one) and I favor leaving it at that. This ethics stuff can cut both ways. Opponents should not badger you to provide more information about your bid than it is reasonable to think your partner has.

Ken

[P_Marlowe]

sceptic, on Mar 25 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

Ok, lets assume the following is true. (may be assume" is in  appropriate)

I had not agreed to play michales or UNT, but I alerted that bid as hearts and a minor

I had not agreed to play anything in particular for the 3 club double, but I knew what I wanted it to mean

so why should should my opps not get shitty with me, when I alert a bid that cleary, I had not agreed to play but decided my pard was clever enough to work out what it means (Michaels convention)

(he  or she was advanced, on their profile) and yet, I make another call exactly the same (we had not agreed to play anything particular and the same things, I assumed my p was adavnced and could work it out for him self)

Yet I stated (when asked) no agreement with p, all in the same hand,

I think as far as it goes the general consensous is that I was ok to bid no agreement (because I clearly was with a pick up p and no history of anything like an agreement for these bids), but I stil have an issue I would like to understand if you will bear with me.

1/. does this make me a hypocrite
2/. Would you or might you find my attitude is poor
3/. do you thik that the inconsistancy of what I did annoying if you were my opp on this hand

Hi,

If you bid a Michales Cue, you expect partner to figure it
out: You use a standard convention, which you think belongs
to the standard set played in the given enviroment.
=> You should alert the bid.
The area between no agreement and implicit partneship
agreement is a large gray area, there is a fuzzy line... but you
should go out of your way to give full disclosure.

BBO is different than a club, but you will play quite often in the
same tournament cycle, at the same time, hence after a while
you know, what is commom standard and what not.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

sceptic, on Mar 25 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

Ok, lets assume the following is true. (may be assume" is in appropriate)

I had not agreed to play michales or UNT, but I alerted that bid as hearts and a minor

I had not agreed to play anything in particular for the 3 club double, but I knew what I wanted it to mean

so why should should my opps not get shitty with me, when I alert a bid that cleary, I had not agreed to play but decided my pard was clever enough to work out what it means (Michaels convention)

(he or she was advanced, on their profile) and yet, I make another call exactly the same (we had not agreed to play anything particular and the same things, I assumed my p was adavnced and could work it out for him self)

Yet I stated (when asked) no agreement with p, all in the same hand,

I think as far as it goes the general consensous is that I was ok to bid no agreement (because I clearly was with a pick up p and no history of anything like an agreement for these bids), but I stil have an issue I would like to understand if you will bear with me.

1/. does this make me a hypocrite
2/. Would you or might you find my attitude is poor
3/. do you thik that the inconsistancy of what I did annoying if you were my opp on this hand

To deal with 3 first, if I were your opponent I would not have asked for the meaning of the double of 3C.

As to 1 and 2, no to 1 and I dunno to 2 since the whole thing wouldn't have happened. I guess in your shoes I would have said it shows clubs (and resisted the urge to add "duh") and let it go at that. Of course then you would have an inquiry about how many points it showed and how good the clubs were and ... You can answer: It shows clubs, beyond that partner and you are both on your own.

I do not believe "it shows clubs" is really needed, but it's also harmless. Your opponents actually already know this, they are just asking because they can.